Occasionally there is an event that makes me want to punch the air joyfully, because it’s proof that some things are headed in the right direction. One of those moments came this week when Boris Johnson was upbraided by the speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, for an example of everyday sexism that Johnson had hoped would subtly damage his “victim”, but stay below the radar.

Johnson apologises for 'sexist' reference to Emily Thornberry

Read more

What Johnson did would, in another period of history, have been completely unassailable. In an exchange with the shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry, he opted to call her by her “married” name of Lady Nugee; a name he initially couldn’t remember, until he was prompted by one of his Tory colleagues. His barb was rude and discourteous – “The Baroness whatever it is, I can’t remember …” – but more importantly, it was aimed at undermining her.

It was an attempt to diminish Thornberry dressed up as an acknowledgment of nothing more than the fact that she is married to a man called Sir Christopher Nugee. It was the kind of remark that someone such as Johnson would hold up his hands over, and give the impression of having no idea whatsoever of what could possibly be wrong with calling a woman by her husband’s name.

I would challenge Meghan Markle, if she really is the feminist she tells us she is, to retain her own identify and name

But Thornberry has never used anything other than her birth name. She has always made clear that she does not use Nugee or Lady. She is entirely entitled to do that, and I have complete sympathy with her frustration at being effectively ridiculed for it, because the same thing happens to me. When I got married 30 years ago my husband made clear in his speech that he was not intending to be called Gary Moorhead; which rather neatly made the point, we thought, about why I would not be known by his name. It’s a clear mark in the sand that you are not a “lesser party” who has been subsumed into the identity of the “main”, male end of the partnership, and that you continue to be an entirely separate individual, now and into the future. But three decades on I still get letters from relatives and friends who appear not to “approve” of my decision, and who address us as Mr and Mrs.

Name-changing is a hopelessly outdated legacy of a past in which women were “owned”, first by their father and then by their husband. But it’s all light years from 2018; so I would challenge Meghan Markle, if she really is the feminist she tells us she is, to retain her own identity and name on marriage, rather than allowing herself to be swallowed up into “Princess Harry” or “Duchess of X”.

Keeping my own name – in all circumstances, and in every situation – is the single most important signal I have ever given the world about my expectations of my life; moreover, it calls out my claim to be an independent woman to everyone I meet. Bercow clearly understands the power of that choice, and the insidiousness of an attempt to undermine it. The days of ridiculing or ignoring it are rightly over.

• Joanna Moorhead writes for the Guardian, mostly about parenting and family life